[tlj009]

replace "homosexual" with "Christian" or "Black" and you tell me.

I am asking you why polygamy is singled out. Not why "Christian" or "Black" is not singled out. I have already answered that. It all comes down to the intent on why the Law was passed. That is why polygamy didn't suddenly become justified and also why homosexuality didn't suddenly become justified. They were still outlawed for a very long time because the purpose wasn't to strike down that law.

The constitution has never been interpreted to remove either age of reason/consent, nor the possability of someone being impared beyond the ability to make reasonable choices.

And the reason why that didn't have to be specifically spelled out? Because it wasn't the intent of the Amendment to take that law from the States. Neither was it the intent to strike down the sodomy laws.

If that were the case, the 14th would fail to affect Jim Crow laws which similarly denied blacks of many rights based on state law.

You are probably right.

The exception allows for individuals to be deprived of their rights through due process (removing a child from parents determined unfit, or removing freedom from someone convicted of a crime, or removing the right to protection from search an seizure with cause and a warrant.) It has never been interpreted to allow the removal of the rights of a group of people.

Like I said, I don't see homosexual marriage as a right and neither did the ones who passed that Amendment. Let me say it again, homosexual relations were outlawed at the time and remained that way for over 100 years. If the amendment applied, then the law would have been struck down shortly after it was passed. But instead, homosexual relations were viewed the same as any other crime and carried some sort of punishment. So even if marriage was a right and protected by this amendment, the criminal act of having homosexual relations was not protected any more than polygamy was protected.

I don't believe it was intended to cover anyone as a seperate group. (It was also passed at a time of Jim Crowe laws). The entire point of the ammendment seems to be that you cannot treat citizens differently from one another.

My proof? The law they actually passed.

I have my doubts as to the extent of the amendment but how does that apply here? Perhaps murders shouldn't be treated differently. And they aren't. If they murder someone, they go to jail but that applies to anyone. Likewise, while homosexuality was outlawed, if you committed the act, then you go to jail. It seems to be much more recent that the laws started to view homosexuals as a separate group rather than a criminal act. And even then it has been done by judges rather than the people. They are the ones who struck down the right for States to have sodomy laws which have been in effect since before the States were formed.

In short, I don't see why the people shouldn't have to vote in order to decriminalize something that has been a criminal offense since the State was formed. And I sure don't know why the Federal Government has involved itself with this being a state issue.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I am asking you why polygamy is singled out. Not why "Christian" or "Black" is not singled out. I have already answered that. It all comes down to the intent on why the Law was passed. That is why polygamy didn't suddenly become justified and also why homosexuality didn't suddenly become justified. They were still outlawed for a very long time because the purpose wasn't to strike down that law.

because at the time, not enough people cared. The purpose of the court is to make sure the law is executed justly and to prevent laws that oppress a minority.

And the reason why that didn't have to be specifically spelled out? Because it wasn't the intent of the Amendment to take that law from the States. Neither was it the intent to strike down the sodomy laws.

again, the intent was irrelevant.

Like I said, I don't see homosexual marriage as a right and neither did the ones who passed that Amendment.

but I do have a right to equal protection under the law, and laws that prohibit homosexuals from marrying one another is not equal protection.

Let me say it again, homosexual relations were outlawed at the time and remained that way for over 100 years. If the amendment applied, then the law would have been struck down shortly after it was passed.

not so. The court doesn't look for laws that violate the constitution. If nobody ever challenges a law, it will remain as is.

But instead, homosexual relations were viewed the same as any other crime and carried some sort of punishment.

which was a violation of my right to liberty, and so those laws were declared unconstitutional

I have my doubts as to the extent of the amendment but how does that apply here? Perhaps murders shouldn't be treated differently. And they aren't. If they murder someone, they go to jail but that applies to anyone. Likewise, while homosexuality was outlawed, if you committed the act, then you go to jail. It seems to be much more recent that the laws started to view homosexuals as a separate group rather than a criminal act. And even then it has been done by judges rather than the people.

if the majority of the people think that people with red hair should be required to change it to blonde, would that be just? Shouldn't the court step up and strike down such a law when a suit is brought because it is discriminatory and violates peoples right to liberty

They are the ones who struck down the right for States to have sodomy laws which have been in effect since before the States were formed.

if the constitution is amended, then the laws that violate that new amendment are no longer in effect. But it takes someone filing suit for that to happen.

In short, I don't see why the people shouldn't have to vote in order to decriminalize something that has been a criminal offense since the State was formed. And I sure don't know why the Federal Government has involved itself with this being a state issue.

the federal government is involved because the constitution has an amendment that says you have to treat all your citizens equally. It isn't just a state issue. It is also a federal issue (income tax is the prime example, citizenship and immigration are others).

you're argument is basically "tradition". We haven't always recognized same sex unions so we should keep it that way.

[tlj009]

because at the time, not enough people cared. The purpose of the court is to make sure the law is executed justly and to prevent laws that oppress a minority.

And if no one cared, then the law didn't apply to this situation. Which means if a judge declares that the law should apply, then they are adding to the law without representation from the people. Do you not see the danger there?

again, the intent was irrelevant.

I simply disagree.

but I do have a right to equal protection under the law, and laws that prohibit homosexuals from marrying one another is not equal protection.

Why can't I make the argument that a law prohibiting polygamy is not equal protection? Or a law prohibiting an adult to marry a child? Because you are "in love" or are sexually attracted to someone is not a good reason.

not so. The court doesn't look for laws that violate the constitution. If nobody ever challenges a law, it will remain as is.

So your argument is that no one was convicted under the sodomy laws after 1868? Or that they had inadequate council for not questioning the laws based on the 14th amendment? I think that is a little bit of a stretch as far as claims go.

which was a violation of my right to liberty, and so those laws were declared unconstitutional

And I disagree with both your assessment and the judges assessment who shot those laws down.

if the majority of the people think that people with red hair should be required to change it to blonde, would that be just? Shouldn't the court step up and strike down such a law when a suit is brought because it is discriminatory and violates peoples right to liberty

It would or should take a new amendment but if it is passed, then the courts have no power to step in a shoot it down. After all, on what basis would they shoot it down? That it violated the Constitution even though it is part of the Constitution?

if the constitution is amended, then the laws that violate that new amendment are no longer in effect. But it takes someone filing suit for that to happen.

Same questions as earlier.

the federal government is involved because the constitution has an amendment that says you have to treat all your citizens equally. It isn't just a state issue. It is also a federal issue (income tax is the prime example, citizenship and immigration are others).

How are you not treating your citizens equally? The law is outlawing homosexual marriage for every single person in the State. Just like there is a law outlawing polygamy for every single person in the State. Hence, the Federal Government has no more business with the issue.

you're argument is basically "tradition". We haven't always recognized same sex unions so we should keep it that way.

No. My argument is that it should be voted on and not be up to a judge to change the current laws.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I know what the intent wasn't seeing as it took over 100 years for this situation to even come up.

Similarly, it took more than 100 years for black citizens counting as people to come up.

But how do you know what the people who voted that ammendment into law wanted it to do? Other than the letter of what they passed? Did you read several hundred biographies I don't know about?

Shall we get out judges to stop studying law and focus instead on the biography channel. It would be awful if we followed a law for something the author might not have thought of.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And if no one cared, then the law didn't apply to this situation. Which means if a judge declares that the law should apply, then they are adding to the law without representation from the people. Do you not see the danger there?

No I don't. If a law is applied as it is written, and that has an unfortunate consequence, then the law itself can be removed by congress. But the constitution protects people, so a law changed by the constitution would likely be changed in favor of the individual, which is always my preference to err on.

I simply disagree.

Then you reduce the justice system to an English class forever debating whether "miles to go before I sleep" was intended as allegory or not.

(FYI: for decades that poem was taught as allegorical. It was the author who finally had to step up and say "no it's not"). The danger of trying to read "intent".

Why can't I make the argument that a law prohibiting polygamy is not equal protection? Or a law prohibiting an adult to marry a child? Because you are "in love" or are sexually attracted to someone is not a good reason.

I personally think anit-poligamy laws should be struck down.

Actually, I think the state should just get out of marriage.

Children are not citizens. They are in the boat slaves were some time back. I'm not aware of much of a constitutional basis for that fact, but it does have centuries of jurisprudence.

So your argument is that no one was convicted under the sodomy laws after 1868? Or that they had inadequate council for not questioning the laws based on the 14th amendment? I think that is a little bit of a stretch as far as claims go.

I don't think it's a strech at all... but prove me wrong. Give me the example of the case where the guy with the "Johhny Cochrin" of his time got and remained convicted.

And I disagree with both your assessment and the judges assessment who shot those laws down.

You are welcome to, but your view of how the constitution should work is not one that has ever been shared by the government, including the founders.

It would or should take a new amendment but if it is passed, then the courts have no power to step in a shoot it down. After all, on what basis would they shoot it down? That it violated the Constitution even though it is part of the Constitution?

It has never happened in history. You might as well ask "so when I let go of a rock and it floats in the air instead of falling, why didn't it fall".

How are you not treating your citizens equally? The law is outlawing homosexual marriage for every single person in the State. Just like there is a law outlawing polygamy for every single person in the State. Hence, the Federal Government has no more business with the issue.

I can marry a woman. Can the woman-citizen next to me exercise the same right? No? That would be unequal treatment.

No. My argument is that it should be voted on and not be up to a judge to change the current laws.

Then laws are useless. Will you have every criminal defendant come before congress to be voted on?

Let's take the absolute most basic example.

Congress passes a law: It is illegal to have red hair.
Congress then passes an ammendement to the constitution: It is not illegal to have red hair.

Someone is arrested for having red hair. What comes next?

[tlj009]

Similarly, it took more than 100 years for black citizens counting as people to come up.

To shoot down segregation anyway. But yeah.

But how do you know what the people who voted that ammendment into law wanted it to do? Other than the letter of what they passed? Did you read several hundred biographies I don't know about?

Shall we get out judges to stop studying law and focus instead on the biography channel. It would be awful if we followed a law for something the author might not have thought of.

I was under the impression that judges did try to figure out the intent of the laws that were passed. Are they now going strictly by the letter of the law? And if they are why isn't polygamy legal for the same reason that homosexuality is legal?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And if no one cared, then the law didn't apply to this situation. Which means if a judge declares that the law should apply, then they are adding to the law without representation from the people. Do you not see the danger there?

there is no danger. The purpose of the courts is to determine how the highest law of our land, which can be very vague and was written decades ago, applies to modern circumstances.

Why can't I make the argument that a law prohibiting polygamy is not equal protection? Or a law prohibiting an adult to marry a child? Because you are "in love" or are sexually attracted to someone is not a good reason.

So your argument is that no one was convicted under the sodomy laws after 1868? Or that they had inadequate council for not questioning the laws based on the 14th amendment? I think that is a little bit of a stretch as far as claims go.

can you site any appeals or suits in the years between when it was enacted to when it was declared unconstitutional? The burden of proof is on you.

And I disagree with both your assessment and the judges assessment who shot those laws down.

so you think it is OK to pass laws that violate my liberty when the exercise of my liberty is with another consenting adult and harms no one? Should we outlaw fornication? Should we outlaw adultry?

It would or should take a new amendment but if it is passed, then the courts have no power to step in a shoot it down. After all, on what basis would they shoot it down? That it violated the Constitution even though it is part of the Constitution?

but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about lower laws (Federal bills, state law and state constitutions) that violate the highest law of the land (the US constitution). If the congress were to pass and then the states had ratified the Federal Marriage Amendment then we would not even be having this discussion.

How are you not treating your citizens equally? The law is outlawing homosexual marriage for every single person in the State. Just like there is a law outlawing polygamy for every single person in the State. Hence, the Federal Government has no more business with the issue.

actually, there isn't a law that outlaws homosexual marriage. Two men can get married and call themselves husband and husband just like a heterosexual couple can call each other husband and wife. The way they aren't treated equally is that the heterosexual couple has added PROTECTION under the law (medical, legal, estate, taxes, etc). The homosexual couple does not have this protection under the law. That's how there isn't equal protection under the law.

No. My argument is that it should be voted on and not be up to a judge to change the current laws.

what law are they changing? If it is state and federal legislative laws defining marriage, then rightfully so, as most of them currently violate the 14th amendment.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

To shoot down segregation anyway. But yeah.


I was under the impression that judges did try to figure out the intent of the laws that were passed. Are they now going strictly by the letter of the law?

there is no legal reason to not allow polygamy.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

To shoot down segregation anyway. But yeah.

It was 1964 before the court ruled unconstitutional weighing votes so that black votes counted less than white ones.

I was under the impression that judges did try to figure out the intent of the laws that were passed. Are they now going strictly by the letter of the law? And if they are why isn't polygamy legal for the same reason that homosexuality is legal?

It should be legal.

Please answer my question about redheads

[Bryan]

is this equal protection under the law?

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La. - Yahoo! News

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

is this equal protection under the law?

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La. - Yahoo! News

I read about this! He's not racist though. He lets the blacks use his bathroom.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I read about this! He's not racist though. He lets the blacks use his bathroom.

but only the special bathroom

[tlj009]

No I don't. If a law is applied as it is written, and that has an unfortunate consequence, then the law itself can be removed by congress. But the constitution protects people, so a law changed by the constitution would likely be changed in favor of the individual, which is always my preference to err on.

So your argument is that laws should apply in every possible instance and if they have unforeseen consequences, then they should be rewrote and passed again until they get it right. I just don't know if they would ever get it right.

Then you reduce the justice system to an English class forever debating whether "miles to go before I sleep" was intended as allegory or not.

(FYI: for decades that poem was taught as allegorical. It was the author who finally had to step up and say "no it's not"). The danger of trying to read "intent".

Of course, there is more information out there than just the law itself. But I do think that if the judges honestly attempt to follow the intent of the law, then it will work out just fine. And, like I said earlier, I think that the expansion of the Federal Government's power is largely because of the judge's adding to the existing laws.

I personally think anit-poligamy laws should be struck down.

Actually, I think the state should just get out of marriage.

Children are not citizens. They are in the boat slaves were some time back. I'm not aware of much of a constitutional basis for that fact, but it does have centuries of jurisprudence.

OK. But if it is a right protected by the 14th amendment, then the Government can't get out of marriage without reworking that amendment. You do realize that I am proposing that the Fed's should get out of marriage altogether and should be out of it currently. I really don't have much of a problem with the State getting out of it as well.

I don't think it's a strech at all... but prove me wrong. Give me the example of the case where the guy with the "Johhny Cochrin" of his time got and remained convicted.

It is rather hard to find but here is a link about the history of sodomy laws in Delaware. It gives several examples.

The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Delaware

You are welcome to, but your view of how the constitution should work is not one that has ever been shared by the government, including the founders.

OK.

It has never happened in history. You might as well ask "so when I let go of a rock and it floats in the air instead of falling, why didn't it fall".

Of course not, but I didn't ask the question. I believe Bryan asked "f the majority of the people think that people with red hair should be required to change it to blonde, would that be just?".

I can marry a woman. Can the woman-citizen next to me exercise the same right? No? That would be unequal treatment.

So it is all about wording. How about this? I can marry someone of the opposite sex. Can the woman citizen next to me exercise the same right? Yes.

Or maybe this. I can marry the person that I am sexually attracted to. Can the pedophile next to me? No. That would be unequal treatment.

Word games simply don't cut it.

Then laws are useless. Will you have every criminal defendant come before congress to be voted on?

Let's take the absolute most basic example.

Congress passes a law: It is illegal to have red hair.
Congress then passes an ammendement to the constitution: It is not illegal to have red hair.

Someone is arrested for having red hair. What comes next?

??????????

The whole argument was that the 14th amendment doesn't apply. So I don't see the correlation with your example at all.

[tlj009]

there is no danger. The purpose of the courts is to determine how the highest law of our land, which can be very vague and was written decades ago, applies to modern circumstances.

Even to the point of applying it to a circumstance well beyond where it was ever intended. Is there any limit at all?

can you site any appeals or suits in the years between when it was enacted to when it was declared unconstitutional? The burden of proof is on you.

I posted some examples in the link to Jerry. But if you are referring to appeals to the Supreme Court, I don't think that there is an example in the link. The examples are simply of people found guilty and sentenced. So they either had inadequate council since the 14th amendment wasn't brought up or everyone understood that the 14th amendment didn't apply.

so you think it is OK to pass laws that violate my liberty when the exercise of my liberty is with another consenting adult and harms no one? Should we outlaw fornication? Should we outlaw adultry?

Probably.

but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about lower laws (Federal bills, state law and state constitutions) that violate the highest law of the land (the US constitution). If the congress were to pass and then the states had ratified the Federal Marriage Amendment then we would not even be having this discussion.

Then you need a better example. But what I have said is that the law restricting marriage does not "violate the highest law of the land".

actually, there isn't a law that outlaws homosexual marriage. Two men can get married and call themselves husband and husband just like a heterosexual couple can call each other husband and wife. The way they aren't treated equally is that the heterosexual couple has added PROTECTION under the law (medical, legal, estate, taxes, etc). The homosexual couple does not have this protection under the law. That's how there isn't equal protection under the law.

So the State will give homosexual's a marriage license. Otherwise, they aren't married as far as the law is concerned. And, as I pointed out earlier, I can see a problem in States that voted to do away with the sodomy laws altogether.

But for the States where a judge decided to do away with them and then decides that the people can't prevent homosexual marriage, I just think that it is going too far. It is kinda like the judges overstepped their authority the first time and as a result they can make this decision. If you keep moving the line, then it never stops.

what law are they changing? If it is state and federal legislative laws defining marriage, then rightfully so, as most of them currently violate the 14th amendment.

They are changing the 14th amendment to cover something that it was never meant to cover. I can't believe that I have spent this much time on it and I still have to answer this question. I am apparently doing a poor job and I really don't want to keep spending time on this, so I will stop.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

So your argument is that laws should apply in every possible instance and if they have unforeseen consequences, then they should be rewrote and passed again until they get it right. I just don't know if they would ever get it right.

It's not the place of the judiciary to decide. If, for example, some congress in GA forgets to include oral sex in a "romeo-and-juilette" law, and as a result, a 19-year-old who received fellatio from a 15 year old is branded a sex offender, and sentanced to 10 years in prison; it is not the place of the judge to say "well, I'm sure congress didn't want to apply it here but the wording is sloppy".

The governor has that power through pardon, and the legilature can ammend the law through voting.

Of course, there is more information out there than just the law itself. But I do think that if the judges honestly attempt to follow the intent of the law, then it will work out just fine. And, like I said earlier, I think that the expansion of the Federal Government's power is largely because of the judge's adding to the existing laws.

Of course. Where a law is vague and can be interpreted more than one way there are several factors that enter in. The likely intended meaning "when they said 'power companies need a permit to build plants' did they mean 'buildings' or 'flora'?", also, interpretation should fall in favor of the defendant, finally related laws are looked at.

If after all that, no consensus can be reached: the entire law can be nullified as too vague or over-reaching.

OK. But if it is a right protected by the 14th amendment, then the Government can't get out of marriage without reworking that amendment. You do realize that I am proposing that the Fed's should get out of marriage altogether and should be out of it currently. I really don't have much of a problem with the State getting out of it as well.

I don't think the fed is currently in in, beyond the Fed's ownership of quasi-states like DC.

The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Delaware

I see some discssion of lobotomizing a teenage boy. Did I miss the review of the constitutionality of the law?

Of course not, but I didn't ask the question. I believe Bryan asked "f the majority of the people think that people with red hair should be required to change it to blonde, would that be just?".

But he didn't ask "why did they think that". I don't think there's a good parallel

So it is all about wording. How about this? I can marry someone of the opposite sex. Can the woman citizen next to me exercise the same right? Yes.

Of course it's about wording.... the moment you mention gender you've violated the constitution.

Or maybe this. I can marry the person that I am sexually attracted to. Can the pedophile next to me? No. That would be unequal treatment.

One party is not a citizen in the full sense of the word, so the 14th wouldn't apply.

Word games simply don't cut it.

I didn't know I was playing games.

The whole argument was that the 14th amendment doesn't apply. So I don't see the correlation with your example at all.

You (was it someone else) argued that a judge should not be able to rule a law unconstitutional. I remember some comment about "opinions".